A month and a half spent watching nearly 100 movies may sound like a cinephile’s dream come true. But it is a seemingly insurmountable reality for the filmmakers choosing the movies that will vie for the Academy Award for best documentary feature. Now some directors are wondering if a new set of rules, meant to be more inclusive, is as flawed as the one it replaced.

In recent days the more than 160 members of the documentary branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have received a box of about 80 DVDs of nonfiction features they are expected to watch before submitting ballots next month, ranking their top 15 choices.

This haul comes with a letter suggesting specific films to focus on. And it follows about 30 to 40 films that members were sent over the summer, with the Academy promising to deliver 10 or more later this month.

“In theory this new system seems very democratic — everybody gets everything,” said Kate Davis, an Academy member and documentarian whose films include “Southern Comfort” and “Stonewall Uprising” (directed with David Heilbroner). “In practice I think it’s going to overwhelm many voters.”

In past years the Academy relied on committees to winnow the field of 100-plus documentaries each year to 15 qualifying movies. (All branch members would then view the films on that shortlist before voting for the five official Oscar nominees, a step that continues under the new rules.)

Among the problems with the old system, filmmakers said, was that it prevented committee members from voting for movies that were not on their list. “You’d get a random stack, and you wouldn’t be able to help what you thought were the best films of the year,” said Heidi Ewing, a co-director with Rachel Grady of the documentaries “Detropia” and “Jesus Camp,” among others.

This year the Academy announced several rule changes to its documentary-feature selection process, including opening the first round of voting to all documentary-branch members on all eligible films. (Another new rule requires that a film be reviewed by The New York Times or The Los Angeles Times in order to qualify.)

Michael Moore, a member of the Academy’s board of governors and a central figure behind the new rules, said Wednesday that these latest changes were made to bring the documentary division’s selection system more in line with other Academy branches, to democratize the process and to weed out films that were made for television or were essentially vanity projects.

On this last front, Mr. Moore said, the system “has failed, miserably.”

“There really should be no boxes of screeners,” said Mr. Moore, who won an Oscar for “Bowling for Columbine.” “Documentary filmmakers, the 160 of us, we watch a lot of documentaries every year, so we know the documentaries that are out there, and we know the ones to watch.”

Going forward, Mr. Moore said, the eligibility rules for documentary features might need to be tightened further to eliminate unqualified films. But he said he was not losing sleep over Academy members who felt besieged by their viewing assignments.

“I’m one of those people,” Mr. Moore said. “I don’t have time to watch 132 movies. No one does, and no one will.”

Speaking from his office in Manhattan, where his package of nearly 80 DVDs had just arrived, Morgan Spurlock the director of “Super Size Me,” said the sheer number of films it contained would inevitably steer voters to familiar titles and recognizable subject matter.

“You do want the best movies to continually rise to the top,” Mr. Spurlock said. But this process, he continued, will “create more of a distance and more of a chance for popular films and filmmakers to get on the list.”

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

Then there is the correspondence that came with the 80-DVD package encouraging voters to view about a dozen randomly selected titles that vary from letter to letter. The list was intended, the letter said, to address the “concern that films without the support of a major distributor or public relations firm would not be seen by voting members.”

Some filmmakers questioned the propriety of emphasizing any films at all. “Directing branch members to view certain titles over others defeats the entire purpose of the rule changes,” said Joe Berlinger, whose documentaries include the “Paradise Lost” series (directed with Bruce Sinofsky) and “Under African Skies.” He added that this was “a virtual invitation to not watch all of the eligible films.” (Among the recommended films on Mr. Berlinger’s list were highly visible releases like “The Central Park Five,” whose directors include Ken Burns.)

Steve James, whose well-regarded documentaries “The Interrupters” and “Hoop Dreams” were both denied feature nominations, said he appreciated the delicate position of the Academy as it tried to enforce stricter guidelines without offending other filmmakers.

Still, Mr. James said, this confusion indicated a “fundamental dilemma” in the methods for choosing the Oscar winner.

“Should it be about the way in which the public engages a documentary — films that they have seen at the theater, that have been hits on the festival circuit, that are going to have the best chance?” he asked. Or, he said, should it “throw open the doors to every single film that can wrangle a date in L.A. and New York?”

“You can’t have it both ways,” Mr. James said.

Thom Powers, a documentary programmer for the Toronto International Film Festival who is artistic director of the IFC Center’s Stranger Than Fiction series and the DOC NYC festival, said this was an issue the Academy would continue to wrestle with as more filmmakers find their way into documentaries.

“The field is growing exponentially, and to me that’s a good thing,” he said. “Among that tide are more films that are probably unworthy of Academy recognition, but it also brings more films that are worthy.”

With her tongue firmly in cheek, Ms. Ewing said the lesson of this debate was that democracy was “terrifying.”

“I agree that tyranny is way more efficient,” she said. “But I am so far more comfortable with a messy democracy. Who knows? Maybe the list this year will be equally as unsatisfying, and we’ll just realize we have different tastes.”

A version of this article appears in print on October 4, 2012, on Page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: Flaws Seen In New Rules For Oscars. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe